Containment Structured Academic Controversy: Description,

Procedures, and Rules

Description:
Today and tomorrow you are going to engage in a structured academic
controversy where you will have the opportunity to discuss and evaluate whether
America’s Cold War policy of containment was a necessary or unnecessary policy.
In this discussion activity, you will be placed with a partner, and you will work
together to create your argument. Then, you will join with another pair who will
argue the opposing viewpoint. After the entire structured discussion, you will all
have to reach a consensus and settle on one, joint argument.
The question that you are debating is: “Was it the job of the United States
to intervene economically and/or militarily in any nation in order to stop the
spread of communism?” You and your partner will be assigned an argument,
either:
 “Yes, it was the job of the United States to intervene economically
and militarily in any nation in order to stop the spread of
communism,” or
 “No, it was not the job of the United States to intervene economically
and militarily in any nation in order to stop the spread of
communism.”

You and your partner will be given a packet with 3 sources that you will use
to construct your argument. Read each source carefully, answer the questions about
the sources, and use evidence from the sources to construct your argument in the
designated parts of your packet.

Tomorrow, you will be paired with another set of your peers who have
constructed the opposing argument. You will share your argument and evidentiary
support, then practice active listening and notetaking as the other team shares their
argument and evidence. Afterwards, you will have the opportunity to discuss and
present counterarguments. Then, you will have to present the opposing argument
as if it was your own using the notes that you took while actively listening. After
this structured discussion, you will all have to work together to select the argument
and evidence that you think is strongest, presenting it at the end of your packet.

An outline of the SAC procedures and rules are below.

Procedures for the Containment Structured Academic Controversy:

Step 1: Learning Your Position – 35 Minutes

 Partners are assigned a position and work together to analyze primary
sources.
 Partners answer questions about primary sources.
 Partners construct their argument and select the best pieces of evidence
from their sources to support their arguments.

Step 2: Presenting Your Argument – 5 Minutes Per Pair

 Starting with the pair arguing that it IS the job of the United States to
intervene, each pair will present their argument and supporting evidence
in 5 minutes.
 After 5 minutes, the second pair will present their opposing argument.

Step 3: Discussion and Counterarguments – 10 Minutes

 Students ask questions about their opponents’ arguments and present
counterarguments.
 Students respond to counterarguments.
 Sentence starters for discussion:
o You said this…but I want to point out that…
o What did you mean when you said…?
o I would like to respond to your comment about…

Step 4: Switch Sides – 2.5 Minutes Per Pair

 Using the notes that they took while actively listening, the pairs now
present the arguments of their opponents as if they were their original
arguments.

Step 5: Build Consensus – 10 Minutes

 The entire group works together to summarize and synthesize the best
arguments and evidence for each argument.
 The group then selects the most impactful argument to answer the central
question.
 ONE member of the group records the final argument and evidence in
their packet, including the names of the other group members.
 Rules for the Containment Structured Academic Controversy

1. Be respectful of your peers.

2. Do not interrupt when someone else is speaking. Wait for them to

finish before making your point.

3. When you ask a question, give the other person enough time to
answer before asking another question.

4. Remember, critique and question your peers’ ideas, not your peers
as people.

5. When someone critiques your ideas, do not take it as a personal

attack. They are questioning your ideas, not you.

6. If you are presented with new and compelling evidence, it is okay

to change your mind!

7. Earnestly try to understand both sides of the controversy!

8. Have fun in your discussions, you are not here to “win” the debate.
You are here to help further your own knowledge and the
knowledge of your group members.

**Note: Rules have been adapted from Carleton College’s Science Education
Resource Center at https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/sac/how.html**